



A \\Lr\ \ 



V A 


{From the North American Review, May, i88g.') 


THE USE AND ABUSE 

OF 

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 


RICHARD RANDOLPH McMAHON, 


DEPUTY COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY. 


> O: 


WASHINGTC>N, D. C. : ‘ 

Gibson Bros., Printer s and Bookbinders. 
189'/. 








' 

/I 




'-■V- 




• Jif- 

n\f . 


/ ■ 




• V' 

• ' . . v. 




N.. 


r V 
/ 



■•'■/’’ * ''j A f « •« * 

^■' V- 'i* 'v 




Gift 

Author 

(Parson) 




■ -V-. ./V 




CK 


\ 








A 


'i 

'< 

X 

A 






^•> 






L»- .\- • 

b^.‘' ’ 

.. 1 

!;* 





*1 


. 

•r ■ 

\ 


C 

. c 

CA 

■ 






t t’. 


'■ .'•' 

:<■'’t, 



< < X . 

< , < ■ .> 

'■■ 


. . 


c 

~ '•• •• 














USE AND ABUSE OF CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM. 


BY RICHARD RANDOLPH m’mAHON, DEPUTY COMPTROLLER OF THE 

TREASURY. 


“ Let none presume 
To v^ear an undeserved dignity. 

O, that estates, degrees, and oifices 

Were not deriv’d corruptly ! and that clear honor 

Were purchas’d by the merit of the wearer ! ” — Merchant of Venice. 

When the Act for the promotion of Civil Service was passed, 
the political spoilsmen felt as if highway robbery had been per¬ 
petrated upon them. To conceal the real motives of their hos¬ 
tility to the measure, they attacked its “ constitutionality,” as 
if they cared more for the Constitution than for patronage and 
plunder. Their new-born zeal for the “ welfare ” of that sacred 
instrument was of such sudden growth that it did not fail of being 
understood. The Pharisee of to-day is no better than the hypo¬ 
crite of yesterday. 

Honest men, bent upon purifying the public offices and liberat¬ 
ing them from the slavery of political influences, laid bare the 
shameful and shameless methods which had governed appoint¬ 
ments in every branch of the Government. Facts and figures 
were mustered. Pledges in party platforms were quoted. But 
the politicians would not be convinced. It was like witnessing 
a serio-comedy to see how many of them came up, all at once, 
like mushrooms, to arrest this “violation of the Constitution,” 
and defend it from “outrage” — a work for which they were 
about as well qualified as they were to explore the unsurveyed 
land in the moon. 

Politicians are pompous in their self-importance. The mer¬ 
cury stands high in them. They are like Pau-Puk-Keewis in 
“Hiawatha”—larger than the other beavers. No wonder, then, 
they assumed to “ defend ” the Constitution against Civil-Service 
Reform, which they are pleased to designate as foreign to the 
genius of our political institutions, and as conducive to per¬ 
manent office-holding. 



2 


The law is neither unconstitutional nor foreign to the genius 
of our institutions, nor does it foster permanent office-holding. 

Section 2, of Article II of the Constitution, provides that: 

“The President . . , shall nominate, and by and with the advice and 

consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors . . . and all other offi¬ 

cers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise pro¬ 
vided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by 
law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the 
President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” 

Wherein does the Civil-Service Law violate the provisions 
of this section? It is alleged that it limits the power of 
appointment vested in the heads of departments, and is, there¬ 
fore and necessarily, an infringement of their constitutional pre¬ 
rogative. What constitutional prerogative of appointment has a 
head of department independently of legislation by Congress? By 
the express terms of the Constitution, Congress is made the de¬ 
pository of the power of appointment to be vested in the heads of 
departments, hut “the Congress may by law vest the appointment 
of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone,” 
or “in the courts of law.” If, therefore. Congress may withhold 
absolutely the power of appointment granted to the heads of de¬ 
partments and vest it in the President or in the courts of law? 
may it not limit and qualify such power, or must the grant be 
absolute, unrestricted, and without qualification? Assuredly not. 
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that when 
Congress, by law, vests the appointment of inferior officers in the 
heads of departments, it may limit and restrict the power of re¬ 
moval as it deems best for the public interests. “The head of a 
department has no constitutional prerogative of appointment to 
offices independently of the legislation by Congress, and by such 
legislation he must be governed, not only in making appointments^ 
but in all that is identical thereto^ (U. S. v. Perkins.) 

Foreign to the genius of our institutions? 

The Supreme Court having affirmed the constitutionality of 
the law, it would seem a vain and idle office to waste arguments 
in showing how much less than nothing there is in this charge. 
Is it “ foreign ” to the genius of our institutions to open the doors 
of the peoples’ offices to merit, and worth, and decency, and 
honor? Is it “foreign” to the genius of our institutions to make 
straight the road which leads to posts of trust, instead of winding 
and crooked ways? Foreign, is it, to the genius of our institu- 


8 


tions to do away with a nefarious system of office-brokerage, to 
wrest the places which belong to the people from the clutches of 
political freebooters, to make men and women independent of 
“ influence ” which was calculated to degrade them and debauch 
the public service ? 

Unable themselves to make headway against the cause of the 
people for reform in the public service, the spoilsmen were cun¬ 
ning enough, and,of course, politicians enough, to borrow strength 
from “ our institutions ” and conduct their work from on high, as 
it were, and thus make themselves seen of all men. The fly sat 
upon the axle-tree of the chariot wheel, and said, “ What a dust 
do I raise!” 

The cause of Civil-Service Reform is the cause of Justice. And 
Justice is an aggressive virtue. Marvel not, therefore, that they 
who made traffic of public places fought, and struggled, and vili¬ 
fied when the hand of justice smote them and broke their power. 
In their exaggerated conceit, they had acquired a legal establish¬ 
ment—these monopolists of the offices ! 

Of all the evils that ever debased or debauched, the worst evil 
was the “ influence ” system, by which offices were purchased and 
held at a sacrifice oftentimes worse than death. It was worse 
than the four deadly sins which cry to Heaven for vengeance. It 
made men and women false; it made them hypocrites; it led to 
untruthfulness, for no one is wholly truthful who is dependent 
upon others, as no one can act naturally who imitates others. It 
weakened all sense of honor, for no one can win honor by “in¬ 
fluence.” “ The winning of honor,” says Lord Bacon, “is the re¬ 
vealing of merit and virtue without disadvantage.” 

“ My ‘influence ’ put me in office and he thinks I should be pro¬ 
moted,” was not, and to this day is not, an uncommon expression 
in the departments. “My influence” was such a just judge of 
the qualifications of the contingent being in whom he was inter¬ 
ested! And with shame be it said that “my influence” was too 
often successful in forcing the appointing power to advance the 
unworthy and unsavory in utter disregard of superior claimants 
with meritorious records, thereby putting dishonor in opposition 
to and above honor. Thus was the principle of good government 
corrupted, the law of justice was subverted, the freedom of the 
appointing power was destroyed, and his functions usurped. This 
was not “foreign” to the genius of our institutions. In truth it 
was not! 


4 


Under such a corrupt system, what should have been a mark 
of the highest honor was but the brand of the lowest slavery. 
But the beneficiary of this vile instrumentality, “ my influence,” 
became insolent and insubordinate, heedless of obligations, reck¬ 
less of rules, and defiant of superior authority. And why not, 
since “my influence ” had vouchsafed tranquillity ? No wonder it 
was regarded as worthy of adoration and incense, and the sacri¬ 
fice of a tender lambkin. 

“ O, Meliboee, Deus nobis haec otia fecit; 

Namque erit mihi semper Deus ; illius aram 
Saepe tener nostris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus. ” 

Nor does the law foster a permanent class of office-holders. 

In 1869, during a visit, never to be forgotten, paid to Charles 
Dickens at Gad’s Hill Place, the myriad-minded novelist, refer¬ 
ring, among other things, to office-holding and office-seeking in 
this country, said: “ On the occasion of my visits to America, my 
first visit especiall}^ I saw, when at Washington, that the mem¬ 
bers of both Houses of Congress regarded the offices of the Gov¬ 
ernment as their special and individual property. Men crawled 
over each other like ants, buffeting one another, fighting, wrang¬ 
ling, scrambling for place—all engaged in a common assault upon 
those whom they were seeking to dislodge and dispossess, all the 
time cringing and truckling to the politicians who seemed, by un¬ 
disputed right, to take control of the public places and dispense 
the Government’s substance. The brutality and selfishness which 
marked the rule of the office-mongers was more disgusting and 
offensive to decent men than the sway of any bloated aristocracy 
that ever cursed a nation. It was calculated to contaminate, per¬ 
vert, destroy sensitive and delicate-minded persons ; it was wholly 
vicious.” 

And then, laying his hand upon the unfinished chapters of 
“ The Mystery of Edwin Drood,” the great novelist, replying to 
my question, said: “ It is not the barnacle system or the methods 
of circumlocution that the people of America want; not the sys¬ 
tems which try the patience of the people on this side of the water 
and call for a lash of scorpions ; but a system that will take places 
from the grasp of tricksters and put them within the reach of all 
decent men who need not surrender their manhood to gain public 
employment.” 

It is now nearly twenty years since these words were spoken, 
and the recollection of them renews the memories of the gifted 


6 


author whose golden pen contributed so much to enrich the 
world’s store of fancy, whose words brought laughter and tears 
to so many eyes, gladness to so many hearts, and happiness to so 
many homes. Dickens, with his omniscient eye, saw the result 
of the methods which were common in 1842, and as well during 
his second visit in 1868. 

The Civil-Service Law has taken subordinate places out of the 
grasp of tricksters and placed them within the reach of all who 
wish to compete, and without the surrender of manhood. So long 
as the power of removal remains in its plenitude in the heads of 
departments, no subordinate is likely to become “ an aristocratic 
office-holder.” Not a bit of it. 

No person receives a permanent appointment under the law. 
After serving a probation of six months, the head of the depart¬ 
ment is at liberty to make a permanent appointment or dismiss 
outright, if the probationer has not come up to the standard. 
There was no probation under the spoils system—no test, no trial. 
Appointments were made like deeds in fee simple. 

Here and there is found a loose-tongued and brittle-brained 
intellect clutching at the law in wildest desperation as “ a bloated 
and aristocratic thing,” because it keeps out “ the boys in the 
trenches.” Well, suppose it does keep out the boys in the ditches, 
and trenches, and gutters, and sewers ? It is all the more com¬ 
mendable on that account. The work of the people of the United 
States is not likely to be well done, or done at all, by “ the boys 
in the trenches.” If a banking-house or business establishment 
wants work, it will not turn to ‘‘the boys in the trenches.” 

Who is it that fumes and rails against the law ? Not the 
President; not the heads of departments; not they who are 
charged with the responsibility of the Government’s affairs. Far 
from it. The clamorings and vaporings come from those who 
cannot longer use the offices as goods and chattels to pay old 
debts and incur new obligations. 

The law was not in vain. It was a necessity. It came none 
too soon. Better would it have been, however, had it reached 
and tested those who were already in the service; for reform, if 
it means anything, means the righting of existing wrongs. Then 
would it have reached many a wrong and uncovered many a 
wrong-doer—authors of campaign poetry and prose, jibers and 
jesters of Presidential contests, the accessories who swelled the 
voice of scandal, persecutors and prosecutors of their fellow-clerks. 


6 


whose unobtrusiveness and quiet fidelity to duty made them 
“ suspects,” “ doubtful as to politics,” and therefore legitimate 
victims of partisan abuse. Having no deserts of their own, they 
hoped to perpetuate the spoils system, which was to them a 
necessity. Their very worthlessness was their claim to patronage. 
They opposed all civil-service reform, fearing that the law might 
overreach them, and sought to indemnify themselves by ques¬ 
tioning the “ propriety ” of such a thing! 

With such as these, public place had ceased to be the post of 
honor ; they shirked duty, neglected trusts, outraged justice, 
cheated the Government, plundered the people’s Treasury. When 
the law passed, they paid homage to the principles of reform by 
outwardly professing sympathy with them, hoping that pretences 
and professions for the future would make up for the derelictions 
of the past, crying out for civil service to shield them, as the 
mountains are expected by the wicked to cover them on the day 
of judgment. 

This is the class which should not have failed of being justly 
dealt with, any more than virtue should fail of its reward. The 
law should have done away with all mischief and sottishness, and 
recognized the distinctions of moral good and evil. It is not, 
however, through any saving clause in the law that such indi¬ 
viduals are perpetuated; they are retained mainly by the inter¬ 
cession and influence of those who denounce civil service as a 
“ copy of the system which fosters an aristocracy of office-holders,” 
and too often by their superiors, who are unwilling to join issue 
with the “ backers ” of their subordinates even in so good a cause 
as the welfare of the Government, preferring to charge the law 
with that with which they themselves are chargeable, and for 
which they alone are responsible. 

If the law had been framed to reach backward as well as for¬ 
ward, no violence would have been done; but even-handed jus¬ 
tice, rather, would have been meted out to all, the just and the 
unjust alike; and, under the test of an honest and impartial 
scrutiny, true merit and worth would have been established, and 
the unworthy would have been unveiled. 

“ How many then should cover that stand bare! 

How many be commanded that command! 

How much low peasantry would then be glean’d 
From the true seed of honor! and how much honor 
Pick’d from the chaff and ruin of the times 
To be new varnish’d! ” 


Kichd. Kandolph McMahon. 


APPENDIX. 


As the result of close observation from within and without the 
public service, I am convinced of the truth of what I said in the 
preceding article—that the cause of Civil Service Reform is the 
cause of right and of justice. It is true, as the great editor of 
The New York San said, that “ if the public offices are crowded 
with idle loafers, a scholastic examination is not necessary to dis¬ 
cover their worthlessness,” but it is equally true that with proper 
safeguards and under the test of a proper and impartial examina¬ 
tion, such characters never would have come into the service. I 
know full well that some of the very best public servants who 
are to-day in the classified service did not enter by the way of 
the Civil Service Commission. But that is no argument against 
the Commission. As well might it be said that because self- 
educated men attain eminence and distinction a college course is 
unnecessary. 

From the great number of letters which I have received from 
distinguished men who read the foregoing article, I have selected 
a few, and now publish them for the first time. 

The learned president of Washington and Lee University, 
speaking of those who are to-day plotting the degradation of our 
Civil Service, well says: 

“ If they are now vexed by the numbers and clamors of those 
who demand offices and ‘jobs’ at their hands, what will be their 
fate, if, by their own act, they increase those numbers and mad¬ 
den those clamors twenty-fold 

More than twelve years ago, while a Representative in Congress 
from this district, which he ever honored by his genius, his talents, 
his character, and his spotless life, he wrote to me: 

“I have supposed myself a fairly sincere advocate of Civil 
Service Reform from my earliest discussion of current politics, 
but the brave and unflinching application of its principles which 
the President is constantly making gives me ever increasing ap¬ 
preciation of the need of this reform, and of the great and benefi¬ 
cent results it will accomplish. It puts a strain upon the virtue 
and patriotism of the victorious party to which my historical 



8 


reading furnishes no parallel, and I am glad to observe that 
twenty-four years’ banishment from official position has not be¬ 
gotten merely a ravenous hunger for ‘ spoils,’ but has very per¬ 
ceptibly fostered a spirit of independence of official patronage.” 


The words of the great leader, Mr. Blaine, read in the light of 
recent events, seem prophetic. “ The danger I apprehend,” he 
wrote, “ is that zealots may overdo what should be done with the 
greatest care and caution.” This danger, he thought, would re¬ 
sult from an inconsiderate extension of the system. Mr. Blaine 
well knew, and I concede, that a general expansion, covering all 
places, would only invite hostility and attack. There are certain 
positions, especially those whereof the incumbents are appointed 
by and responsible to their immediate superiors for the perform¬ 
ance of duty and the custody of money, which should, in my 
judgment, be exempted. 

K. R. McMAHON. 


Jefferson Place, 

Harper’s Ferry, W. Va., Dec. 31, ,1897. 


President’s Office, 

Washington and Lee University, 

Lexington, Va., Dec. 20, 1897. 

Dear Mr. McMahon : I have read, after the lapse of years, once again 
your paper on The Use and Abuse of Civil Service Reform, first printed in 
the May, 1889, number of the North American Review. The apt and blis¬ 
tering words in which you describe the working of the Spoils system deserve 
to be reprinted and reread to-day, when an organized effort is being made 
to do away with the Reform, or to limit and virtually nullify its extent and 
efficacy. Those who are plotting this degradation of our Civil Service little 
comprehend the plagues they are inviting upon themselves. If they are now 
vexed by the numbers and clamors of those who demand offices and “jobs” 
at their hands, what will be their fate if by their own act they increase those 
numbers and madden those clamors twenty-fold, and at the same time pull 
down the barriers that give a sufficient and honorable defence against them ? 

Fortunately, we have confidence that the President will stand fast, not 
only to his strong professions, but to his honest convictions in this struggle, 
and, when the present assault is repulsed, that he will go further, and com¬ 
pel a decent respect for the spirit as well as the letter of the law and the reg¬ 
ulations made under it in all branches of the public service. 

The Spoils system, though driven from the approaches to the Civil Service, 
may yet rule rampant within that service, by controlling promotions and 
degradations and even removals. 


9 


Your paper must strengthen the hands of those who stand for saving the 
hard-won fruits of past victories, and for adding other fruits not less sub¬ 
stantial to them. 

Sincerely yours, 

WM. L. WILSON. 

Hon. Richd. Randolph McMahon. 


The World Editorial Rooms, 

World Building, Park Row, 

New York, May 12, 1889. 


My Dear McMahon : Your article on the “ Use and Abuse of Civil Service 
Reform ” in this month’s North American Review is an able document. 
Like everything you write, it is in faultless English. I am a very busy man, 
but I took time to read and re-read it. I’m glad that the Government has 
in its service such an able man and so good a fellow. Send me something 
from your goose-quill occasionally. 

Very sincerely, 

JOHN A. COCKERILL. 

Hon. Richd. Randolph McMahon, 

Comptroller of the Treasury, &c. 


Charlestown, Jeff. Co., W. Va., May 22, 1889. 

Dear Mr. McMahon, 

Washington, D. C.: 


I have read with great interest and profit your admirable article to the 
North American Review for May on the “Use and Abuse of Civil Service 
Reform.” 

I am sure great regret must be felt by all whose attention has been called 
to this article that the author of it has not been placed in a position in which 
the views so forcibly presented would have had the sanction of official 
authority. 

I would have said thus much to you earlier but have been absent for sev¬ 


eral weeks from home. 

Very sincerely yours, 

Hon. Richard Randolph McMahon, 

Washington, D. C. 


WM. H. TRAVERS. 


Department of State, May 29, 1889. 

Dear Mr. McMahon : Before you were kind enough to send me your 
admirable acticle, I had lead it in the North American Review. The editor 
is to be congratulated upon your enlistment in so good a cause as the civil 
service. 

The danger I apprehend is that zealots, who are never practical, may 
overdo what should be done with the greatest care and caution. They are 
too eager for a general expansion which would only invite hostility to the 




10 


system, and perhaps result in a total collapse. Civil service reform is like 
a tender plant: its growth cannot be forced; it must mature naturally. 

Your familiar “ hexameters ” from Virgil remind me of the time when I 
was endeavoring to master the task of “ scanning.” 

I am glad that in your office of Comptroller—a post of dignity and respon¬ 
sibility—you have elevated the standard of reform and kept it high. For 
your kind words, and for the many evidences of your friendship, I can re¬ 
turn no adequate thanks. 


Very sincerely yours, 

Hon. Richard Randolph McMahon, 

Treasury Department, &c. 


JAMES G. BLAINE. 


Wallingford, Pa., July 23, 1889. 


My Dear Friend : l^our letter, so full of sincere words of friendship, re¬ 
ceived and gave us much gratification. The feelings you express towards 
me are fully and entirely reciprocated. I am better, but how near ready for 
hard work a trial alone will develop. 

I will not mar this letter by a discussion of the political situation except 
to say I believe all will come as you and I wish. Your article on civil service 
is admirably written. McElhone says there is a good deal of pepper in it. 
True, but it takes more than salt and pepper to purify the public service. 
You and Judge Maynard are the only men who have shown what real econ¬ 
omy and reform mean. If you come this way, advise me, and I will send 
carriage to the station to meet you. 

Is there any way in which I can serve you ? 

Very truly yours, 

SAM J. RANDALL. 


R. R. McMahon, Esq., 

Deputy Second Comptroller. 


The Sun, 

New York, August 5, 1889. 

My Dear Sir : I receive your letter just as I am putting on my coat to 
leave the office. I am not, as you seem to think, “ hostile to civil service 
reform,” but I am opposed to the humbug and hypocrisy of cranks, theo¬ 
rists, and self-elected reformers who are themselves the most persistent 
place hunters. The best way to test a man is to let him prove what is in 
him. If he is qualified his work will show it. 

If the public offices are crowded with idle loafers who are, as you say, 
“ the beneficiaries of the influence system,” a scholastic examination is not 
necessary to discover their worthlessness. If the heads of departments will 
do their duty and insist upon good service, it ought to be an easy task to 
tell who are good and who are bad. 

Your article is well written. If I can’t agree with all you say, it is no 
argument against it. 

Truly yours, 

C. A. DANA. 

Richard R. McMahon, Esq. 




11 


Ashfield, Mass., August 25, 1889. 

My Dear Sir : I am very much obliged to you for a copy of your paper 
on the Use and Abuse of Civil Service Reform, which I have read with 
great interest and pleasure. It seems to me a most timely and valuable 
word for the good cause. How very happy is your motto from the Merchant 
of Venice! 

Faithfully yours, 

GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS. 

Hon. Richard Randolph McMahon, 

Deputy Comptroller, &c. 


451 Madison Avenue, 

New York, 3 May ^ 1892. 

Dear Sir : I have to thank you for your courteous note, the valuable paper 
on Civil Service, and for the complimentary article you are good enough to 
enclose. Hoping you may never see cause for a less favorable view, I am, 

Very truly yours, 

WHITELAW REID. 

The Hon. Richard R. McMahon. 


Colonel F. C. Ainsworth, United States Army, 

Chief Record and Pension Office, War Department. 

Record and Pension Office, 

War Department, 

Washington, D. C., January 10, 1893. 
My Dear Mr. McMahon : Allow me to thank you for your kind note of 
yesterday, enclosing your paper on Civil Service Reform. 

I have never seen this paper until now, and am under many obligations to 
you for sending it to me. It is the best and most forcible presentation of 
the case of the friends of Civil Service Reform that I have yet seen, and, in 
addition to that, its style and diction are admirable. You have good reason 
to be proud of it, and I congratulate you upon having written it. 

Again thanking you for your kindly remembrance of me, I am, 

Sincerely your friend, 

F. C. AINSWORTH, 

U. S. A. 

Hon. Richard R. McMahon. 


PocANTico Hills, 

Westchester Co., N. Y., January 20, 1893. 
My Dear Sir : Permit me to express to you my sincere appreciation of 
your very kind note of the 9th inst., as well as my thanks for the pamphlet 
you were so good as to send me, and believe me. 

Very truly yours. 


C. SCHURZ. 





i 


y ... ?•/ N: .' V •» ■ •* * '». V '. ^ \ ^ 





s . 


•■ y 





